About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents
 
advertisement


Subscriptions
Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
     RTN
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By


Product Reviews
Partner Sites

machinecontrolonline 


lbszone.com

GISuser.com

GeoJobs.biz

GeoLearn

 

Spatial Media LLC properties

Associates

ASPRS

newsnow 

Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Vantage Point: How "Hard" Must "Hardship" Be? Print E-mail
Written by Wendy Lathrop, LS, CFM   
Sunday, 22 June 2008

A 480Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

Our governments, whether local, state, or federal, have a certain amount of say-so and control over our real estate. All three have the power to exercise their powers of eminent domain to condemn private property for public uses, providing that just compensation is paid to the landowner. The definition of "public use" became a national debate a few years ago after the Kelo v. New London suit in Connecticut, but there is a second means by which local jurisdictions in particular control our realty, and that is through "police power" as exercised through land use and zoning ordinances. Police powers do not take away a person's rights as condemnation does, but instead directs or restricts them. Just as in condemnation proceedings, the affected landowner has the right to appeal police actions relating to land. Recently a disgruntled landowner in Plumstead Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania exercised that right, and first won in trial court but then lost in the Township's appeals to the State Supreme Court, making land use news throughout the country.

Mr. A. Rhodes Wilson had bought property on US Route 611 (known locally as Easton Road) that was zoned R-2, a residential zone allowing home occupations, which are defined as a use "conducted within an existing dwelling which is the bona fide residence of the principal practitioner...." A house did exist on the property, and Wilson began to renovate it. After a zoning officer notified Wilson that he needed a building permit, Wilson made the application and received approval for the plans he had submitted to the Township entitled "Wilson Residence". As the renovations proceeded, the building inspector noticed that improvements throughout the structure were all typical of an office, but Wilson assured him that they were for a residence with a "home occupation".

After the renovations, however, the zoning inspector found that Wilson was not living there, and was instead using the building only as an office, an impermissible professional office use inconsistent with R-2 zoning. Wilson's response to the Enforcement Notice was to file an appeal, which the Township rejected because the building could reasonably be used as zoned. Mere desires to maximize financial gain are not the grounds for a use variance, and any hardship was self-inflicted. Wilson's appeal to the trial court succeeded, based on additional evidence identifying various commercial entities operating nearby that made the property "not conducive to residential living or raising a family" and testifying that he would not "enjoy living there because of traffic and traffic noises." The Township, of course, was not happy with this outcome, and both the Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld Plumstead's actions in denying the variance.

What is the burden on the applicant for a variance? The upper courts here defined that as a showing of unnecessary hardship resulting from denial of a variance, that the use will not be contrary to public interests, and that the requested variance would be the minimum action that would afford relief from the hardship.

According to Black's Law Dictionary, a hardship is "In general, privation, suffering, adversity. As used in zoning statues as grounds for variance, it refers to fact that zoning ordinance or restriction as applied to a particular property is unduly oppressive."

When is a hardship really a hardship, warranting a variance, and when is it self-inflicted? Because land use regulation was applied uniformly throughout the R-2 zone, there was no special hardship inflicted upon Wilson by enforcement of those same ordinances on his particular property; every other landowner in the same R-2 area was subject to the same circumstances. There was no difference between his house that was eligible for home occupation and any other house on that stretch of highway eligible for the same uses. He was not being singled out, he was not being denied use of his property, and his house was suitable for the zoned uses imposed by the Township.

Wilson was aware of the zoning before he bought the property, and was aware of the busy nature of the area. As a side note, his "additional evidence" presented to the trial court included nearby tracts that he failed to disclose as being zoned for the strictly commercial uses they supported. Knowing, then, what he was getting into, were Wilson's circumstances "self-inflicted"? To be self -inflicted, the property owner would have to have created the conditions leading to the hardship. Wilson did not affect the zoning, and he did not pay more than the property was worth as a house eligible for "home occupation".

This brings up a significant point in arguing for hardship variances­or against them. About ten years ago, a developer in my area pressured a local jurisdiction to change the zoning for a certain area from commercial to residential use. Against public urging to the contrary, the community made the change. But then publicity about environmentally unsafe conditions making residential use hazardous became a very hot topic. Restraining their great desire to shout, "We told you so," the original opponents moved to oppose the variances that the zoning board was now granting to the developer to build in that same area, and failing that, pressed suit in Commonwealth Court to stop the development.

On the heels of the opponents' win, the developer immediately appealed to the next higher court, which overturned the lower court and upheld the variances granted by the zoning board. Why? Because obviously there was a hardship! If the developer did not receive the requested variances to complete its project as it planned, it would suffer great economic loss, and since the site was zoned for residential use, it could not possibly be used for anything else. What the court failed to acknowledge, and what had not been an issue in the lower court, was that the zoning change had been implemented at the developer's own request. Without that prime piece of information, the upper court would not believe that this was a self-inflicted hardship.

Author Note: For those wishing to read Wilson v. Plumstead Township Zoning Hearing Board, the citation is 926 A.2d 1061, Supreme Ct. of PA, 2007.

Wendy Lathrop is licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in NJ, PA, DE, and MD, and has been involved since 1974 in surveying projects ranging from construction to boundary to environmental land use disputes. She is a Professional Planner in NJ, and a Certified Floodplain Manager through ASFPM.

A 480Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

 
< Prev   Next >

Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article

deliciousrssnewsletterlinkedinfacebooktwitter

Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
please
contact Amerisurv


Google
 
AMERISURV TOP NEWS

Trimble Intros
TSC7 Controller

GOT NEWS? Send To
press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content

Sponsor


News Feeds

 
Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps
Careers

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.

 

Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 

twitter

 




The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-620-0784
301-695-1538 - fax